N Vermont vs Tug Hill contest

That bright yellow dot is mansfield, the highest point in VT and right on the spine of the northern ridge line of the greens.

But if you look at snowfall totals reported by resorts(suspect)
Jay peak 88 inches
Stowe:  86 inches

That doesn't really match the map you just posted. I've always had my suspicions that stowe(mt mansfield) gets more snow than jay peak.

Tug hill lost much of it's snow in thaws.

So base depth is more important than snow total anyways.  And if NVT has a better base depth and higher snowfall total then that pretty much ends this discussion.  NVT for the win.

PowderAssassin wrote

That bright yellow dot is mansfield, the highest point in VT and right on the spine of the northern ridge line of the greens.

But if you look at snowfall totals reported by resorts(suspect)
Jay peak 88 inches
Stowe:  86 inches

That doesn't really match the map you just posted. I've always had my suspicions that stowe(mt mansfield) gets more snow than jay peak.

Tug hill lost much of it's snow in thaws.

And we've already went over this.  Jay is so small on a map that they wouldn't even show up.  

Glade Runner wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

That bright yellow dot is mansfield, the highest point in VT and right on the spine of the northern ridge line of the greens.

But if you look at snowfall totals reported by resorts(suspect)
Jay peak 88 inches
Stowe:  86 inches

That doesn't really match the map you just posted. I've always had my suspicions that stowe(mt mansfield) gets more snow than jay peak.

Tug hill lost much of it's snow in thaws.

And we've already went over this.  Jay is so small on a map that they wouldn't even show up.

How convienient for jay peak? Too small...nothing to see here folks....LOL

Yes they would be able to see it on that map. That map is detailed enough to show jay peak. Absolutely. You can clearly see the map is highly elevation dependent and very detailed. Hydrology type maps get that detailed. Look at a topo map of jay peak. There's a BUNCH of peaks in the area. It's not a singular peak. Bunch of 3000 footers forming a ridge line. So it's a larger area than just a singular peak anyway. All those peaks cause upslope effect. Just like by mansfield, it's a ridge line bunch of peaks. By looking at those maps, as well as the average vt precip map that matches that snow depth map in proportions, The upslope effect simply isn't as great at jay peak area than it is by mansfield as shown by the maps.

Again, I'd tell anyone to ski jay peak over stowe just because stowe rapes people on price and is a rip off. So I have no dog in this fight. If anything, I'd rather jay peak get more snow.

Thats fine but the difference between Mansfield and Jay is so small that I really don't care.  What about the comparison to Tug Hill and Snow Ridge?  

Glade Runner wrote

Thats fine but the difference between Mansfield and Jay is so small that I really don't care.  What about the comparison to Tug Hill and Snow Ridge?

I don't think jay peak gets 125 inches more snow than snow ridge. Period. That's nearly gore's entire seasonal snowfall extra. One thing I should also add. Jay peak should cut trails on the south and southwest facting portion of the mountain and make them all natural wide powder fields. This would create tremendous wind protection. Jay peak faces northeast. Directly in the face of winds from a nor'easter. Zero wind protection especially since there's no peaks to the northeast of it.

They are closing in on 100 inches already before the end of the year.  Its about all open to, besides the chutes.  Your idea about south wide open slopes might be a good idea if since they are already expanding in a lot of ways but, Im not sure if that is possible.  My understanding is the back side is state forest and big Jay so idk how viable an expansion down the backside would be with too many unknown variables on my part.

glade ,let it go, he's playing you, falling into his trap.

Well Snow Ridges report says 5 + trails open.  Jay is 68 of 76 open.  I think that says it all right there.  Jay also reports a base depth at the base of 18" and a base depth at the summit of 42".   That shows the difference right there and you wonder why the peaks dont show up on your map.

Glade Runner wrote

Well Snow Ridges report says 5 + trails open.  Jay is 68 of 76 open.  I think that says it all right there.  Jay also reports a base depth at the base of 18" and a base depth at the summit of 42".   That shows the difference right there and you wonder why the peaks dont show up on your map.

I never said near 4000 feet wasn't COLDER than snow ridge, thus holds snow cover better. That elevation is colder than quebec city. 1300 feet in central ny doesn't compare in how cold it is. Also, this year is near RECORD amount of snows for northern new england mountains so far. It's not average. Snow ridge is having average year so far.

So this just isn't your year.  So you decide not to keep track when you are losing.  If Tug Hill was having a record year you'd be keeping track and throwing that around.  But, that's just the way it goes.  Weather is unpredictable and you just have to go where the snows at that particular time.  So who wants to hit Jay after the new year?  Ill even give Pow a free ticket but he has to ride glades.

PowderAssassin wrote

 Jay peak should cut trails on the south and southwest facting portion of the mountain and make them all natural wide powder fields.

Yeah a bunch of south facing trails for powder fields. Brilliant. That's how you definitely assassinate the powder

skimore wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

 Jay peak should cut trails on the south and southwest facting portion of the mountain and make them all natural wide powder fields.

Yeah a bunch of south facing trails for powder fields. Brilliant. That's how you definitely assassinate the powder

POWDER= FRESH SNOW
So the thaw/freeze cycle from the sun is irrelevant since the powder is chopped up the next day anyway. I've had better pow days at bromley than anywhere else in new england. Most new england mountains have trails facing northerly because of thawing from the sun and are totally ignoring wind protection for better ungroomed powder(ie less money to blow snow), If jay peak has all natural snow operation(and this should be NO PROBLEM  with an average 355 inches...more than aspen and we all know the mansfield state keeps snow all season long) than having south facing trails would be awesome.

Bromley makes southerly exposure work and they are less cold than jay peak.

This south facing argument is pointless because Jay does not own that land, it is protected forest land, pretty damn sure on that, but I may be mistaken. Remember reading a few articles about some overtrimmed "trails" being cut into Big Jay and there being a huge uproar about BC access and any trimming done in the area.

PS: If that was unmentionable, I apologize and will refrain from mentioning it again.

Efilnikufesin wrote

This south facing argument is pointless because Jay does not own that land, it is protected forest land, pretty damn sure on that, but I may be mistaken. Remember reading a few articles about some overtrimmed "trails" being cut into Big Jay and there being a huge uproar about BC access and any trimming done in the area.

PS: If that was unmentionable, I apologize and will refrain from mentioning it again.

Most ski areas are on national forest land(east and especially west coast). Using the logic that you can't expand because you're on a state land is abusrd. If that was the case, we wouldn't have any ski areas. You simply need to file and get permission. There's ALWAYS an uproar from the tree hugging wacko's anytime anything is planned. It's said our interstate system couldn't be built nowadays if we had to build it now due to these nuts. That'd be great for the economy.  Our forests are under far more pressure from expanding housing/parking lots ect than a few ski areas.  WAY too much power given to a few TINY small interests groups. It's horrible. I'm not surprised there was uproar over trimming a few trees.

But when someone comes into with a LOT of money/lobbyist power ect suddenly things get done and they skip right over and do things FAR WORSE to the environement than trimming a few trees.

I'll say. Just look at what bears do in the woods.

Pow I like your new avatar. It will make it ever so slightly less painful to read your endless posts.

You got a logical fallacy going. Just because ski areas ski on public land does not mean any ski area can expand onto any public land at any time.

on Dec 14, 2014; 8:07pm you waived goodbye to all of us, what's happening?

You'll figure why some day.

I don't like PA's new avatar.  Looks a little dangerous, and where is the orange fencing?